PJSC “Obolon” without competition won the tender announced by the State Rear Operator of the Ministry of Defense for the supply of bottled water with a volume of 1.5 liters. The amount of the deal was 652.74 million hryvnias. The final contracts for the provision of water to the Armed Forces for the second half of 2025 should be signed soon. About this it is said in the Prozorro system.
Due to the lack of other participants, “Obolon” gave only a small discount – 0.5% of the expected cost. The cost of one liter of water according to the results of the purchase is 4 hryvnias. This is noticeably different from the conditions of previous tenders: for example, in the first half of 2025, the companies “Akva-eco” and “Zavod Artuz-aqua” also participated in the tender, which allowed to reduce the price by approximately 10% – then water cost an average of UAH 3.8/l.
Usually, the level of competition in such tenders was low and limited to one or two companies. Only once did four participants participate in the auction, but even then it was possible to reduce the expected value by 5–13%. Purchase prices in 2024 mostly fluctuated between UAH 2.9–3.9/l, only in one case was the price fixed at UAH 4.1/l.
During 2024, attempts to enter the water supply market were made by Vodogray LLC, Akva-Eko LLC, Dnipro Alcohol-Non-Alcoholic Combine LLC, Ekonia LLC, Artez Aqua Plant LLC, Aquaplast LLC, Novomoskovsk Mineral Water Plant PJSC, and UT Company LLC. Only three of them were able to win contracts: “Akvaplast”, “Novomoskovskiy Zavod” and “YUT Company”. At the same time, the share of “Obolon” in DOT contracts was 93%.
Despite long-term cooperation with the Ministry of Defense, “Obolon” submitted a request to revise some terms of the draft contract. In particular, the company drew attention to the fact that in the new version of the document, the responsibility of the supplier has significantly increased, while the responsibility of the customer is either not defined at all or is minimal.
Yes, the project provided for a fine in the amount of 100% of the cost of the goods for a delay in delivery of more than 7 days. “Obolon” emphasized that there are significant risks under wartime conditions, especially during delivery to front-line areas. The customer partially took these arguments into account: he kept the fine, but extended the permissible delay period to 14 days – in accordance with the previous contract.
The company also challenged the clause about the possibility of demanding water delivery in less than one day. DOT agreed to change the requirement — the delivery period must now be at least three days. Another controversial provision is the obligation to respond to product quality claims within 24 hours. “Obolon” noted that this time is not enough for laboratory analysis. However, the DOT left the requirement unchanged, referring to the internal control of the Armed Forces.
The company also asked to cancel the clause that allowed the customer to delay payment for the entire batch of goods in case of non-payment of a fine for a separate violation. In her opinion, this created a financial trap – even for a slight delay in payment or a technical error, the customer could not pay for the entire delivery. DOT recognized these comments as valid and removed the relevant provision from the contract.
